nan — European UPC Patent Cases
18 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 18 total
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU; Europe Angelalign Technology B.V.; Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH; Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the retrospective extension of deadlines in preliminary measures proceedings. The Defendants sought to overturn a Local Division order that granted an extension based on human error, arguing it circumvented strict rules for missed deadlines (R. 320 RoP). The Court of Appeal upheld the Local Division's ruling, emphasizing judicial discretion and procedural stability over challenging the initial decision.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling on security for costs, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned an order requiring Syntorr LP to provide a €2 million bank guarantee against Arthrex companies. The court found that Syntorr's existing litigation insurance, which included an anti-avoidance endorsement and was issued by an EU-licensed insurer, provided adequate financial protection. This decision provides important clarity on the acceptance of alternative security mechanisms in UPC proceedings, particularly for SMEs.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the scope of claim amendments under Rule 263 RoP. CeraCon GmbH sought to amend its counterclaim for revocation by introducing a new ground of invalidity based on prior art (EP’480). The court denied this request, emphasizing that parties must demonstrate reasonable diligence in their prior art searches. This ruling reinforces the strict procedural requirements governing claim amendments within UPC proceedings.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
This UPC Procedural Order addressed a critical dispute over the starting date of deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections and Statements of Defense in an infringement action. The Court confirmed that prior agreements regarding confidentiality regimes establish the effective start date, despite subsequent appeals. While maintaining strict adherence to procedural efficiency, the judge-rapporteur granted a limited three-week extension based on the parties' voluntary compliance with information sharing requests.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case concerning EP 4 108 413 addressed a request by the counterclaim claimant to amend its revocation proceedings by introducing new prior art. The court rejected this application, reinforcing strict rules regarding the late introduction of evidence under Rule 263 RoP. The decision highlights the importance of due diligence in patent searches and the procedural necessity of preventing undue delay or prejudice to the defendant's defense.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect in a complex infringement and revocation case. The core issue was the appeal against a CFI order requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs. Given that the main proceedings had been stayed due to the insolvency of the Easee companies, the Court found that continuing the appeals served no purpose. This ruling emphasizes the practical application of procedural rules when external events, such as corporate insolvency, impact ongoing litigation in the UPC.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Easee Holding B.V., and managing director
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect related to a security for costs order issued by the CFI in an infringement action. The court found that the initial order contained manifest errors, specifically regarding the legal basis for requiring security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA. By granting suspensive effect to both Easee's appeals, the UPC ensured that the status quo would be maintained pending a full review of the underlying issues.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division granted a three-month stay of proceedings in an infringement action after two defendants were declared bankrupt. The court clarified that while insolvency does not automatically halt UPC proceedings, it allows for a temporary suspension under Rule 311.1 RoP. Crucially, the decision confirmed that the stay must encompass all parties, including non-insolvent natural persons like company directors, based on established case law regarding liability.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This UPC procedural order addressed a request by the counterclaim claimant (CCR) to introduce new prior art into its revocation proceedings against EP 4 108 413. The CCR sought leave to amend its case based on a newly discovered document, arguing for generous application of amendment rules. However, the Court dismissed the request, reinforcing strict adherence to procedural requirements in counterclaim for revocation actions. The ruling highlights the court's priority of procedural certainty and protecting the defendant from late-stage attacks.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This procedural order in the Mannheim Local Division addressed a dispute over the language of proceedings in an infringement action concerning EP 4 108 413. The Claimant, Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH, sought to confirm its choice of English as the official language. The Court ruled that the Claimant's initial designation and filing in English was valid, thereby resolving the procedural issue regarding the language.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC granted Visibly Inc.'s request for security for costs against Easee B.V. The court found that despite arguments regarding the UPCA's scope and the defendants' status as a start-up, the claimant was entitled to protect itself from non-recovery of legal fees due to the defendants' precarious financial situation. This decision reinforces the procedural right of parties in UPC proceedings to seek security for costs when there is a genuine risk that judgment costs cannot be recovered.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This case involved an appeal by NJOY Netherlands B.V. challenging a decision from the Court of First Instance regarding the revocation of EP 2 875 740. The core issue was not the patent's validity, but procedural compliance. NJOY failed to pay the court fees for the appeal and subsequently waived its right to be heard on this point. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the entire appeal by default under Rule 229.4 RoP.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge concerning service of a default judgment in provisional measures proceedings involving a defendant domiciled in China. After extensive attempts at formal service via the Chinese competent authority failed due to delays and eventual refusal, the Court ruled that good service could be established through an alternative method. By publishing the decision on the UPC website and notifying the defendant by email, the Court ensured the principle of effective legal protection was upheld, allowing the default judgment to proceed.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural hurdle in cross-border litigation: establishing good service when traditional methods fail. The applicant sought provisional measures against a defendant domiciled in China. After formal attempts via the Hague Service Convention stalled due to inaction by Chinese authorities, the Court ruled that publication of the default judgment on its website, combined with email notification, satisfied the principle of effective legal protection and constituted valid service. This ruling provides significant clarity for practitioners dealing with defendants in jurisdictions where judicial cooperation is slow or non-existent. It reinforces the UPC's commitment to ensuring substantive justice over strict adherence to procedural formalities.
Meril Italy srl v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application for cost allocation in the context of public access to the register. The applicants sought reimbursement of costs incurred during a prior proceeding regarding their request for access. The Court ruled that because the underlying proceedings were administrative, aimed at enhancing judicial transparency rather than resolving private rights disputes, they did not constitute a 'decision on the merits'. Consequently, the application for cost recovery was dismissed.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue: establishing 'good service' when serving documents internationally, specifically in China. The applicant sought confirmation that the extensive attempts to serve the preliminary measures application constituted valid notification despite the lack of formal delivery certificates. The Court granted this request, effectively deeming the steps taken as good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. This ruling provides significant procedural relief for applicants facing protracted international service challenges.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning service of documents in cross-border litigation, specifically involving China. The applicant sought confirmation that the extensive efforts made to serve the preliminary measures application constituted 'good service' despite the failure of formal and informal methods under the Hague Service Convention. The Court granted this request, effectively validating the steps taken by the registry. This ruling provides significant procedural relief for applicants facing intractable service issues in foreign jurisdictions.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request by the Defendants to stay infringement proceedings pending the outcome of an opposition filed at the EPO. The Court rejected the application, emphasizing that the primary legal basis for such a stay requires the expectation of a rapid final decision from the EPO. Given the likelihood of appeals following the opposition, the court determined that the condition for staying the case was not met, allowing the infringement action to proceed.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.